Sonia resigns
I wrote a long article in Gosumag the last time Sonia resigned. Obviously, I couldn’t resist the temptation of writing another one this time (in a serious vein though).
A lot has been written and said about this peculiar habit of hers. I won’t comment on whether it was a virtuous act, a political gimmick, converting a necessity into an opportunity, or, most probably, a mix of all of these. All people hold different and yet equally valid opinions on this.
But there is a fundamental difference between the previous resignation and this one, which no one seems to be pointing out. When she declined the post of the PM, there was a pretty strong sentiment in a large section of the populace against India having an inexperienced and an Italian PM. So, if she had taken the post, each and every action of hers was going to be dissected under an electron microscope, and looked at with a tinge of suspicion. Just imagine, if the Quattarochi account defreezing had happened with her being the PM, what hell would have broken loose!! Basically, what I am trying to say is that the last time she resigned, there was a strong and justifiable reason behind it,namely, saving a large section of the nation from a great emotional trauma, and protecting the post of the PM from needless bias and suspicion.
Now take a look at the current case. The law on the office of profit funda is an archaic one. It allows Vijay Mallya to be on the Parliamentary committee on Aviation affairs, but considers heading some state film institute an office of profit. Did Jaya Bacchan just resign quietly when she was asked to? No, she fought, as she had done nothing wrong. She had not used her post in the UP Film Institute for any unfair means. The case was not that of her being at fault, but the law being at fault. Then why should she resign?
Similarly, when Sonia Gandhi was targeted, no one even alleged that she had profited from her office in NAC. The entire case was based on a silly law, which if applied, would reduce the legislature to a scene similar to our Gynac lectures. She should have stood up and said that she has done nothing wrong. Either everyone resigns or they all discuss the issue seriously and amend the law. And probably bring Jaya back as well. And she might have apologized for the brazen way the Congress had tried to subvert the parliament and bring an ordinance. That’s what an honest politician and a statesman would do. Accept ones mistake and rectify it.
Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. Instead, we were re fed the old resignation drama. And surprisingly, everyone seems to have missed this. No Big Fight or We the People asks this simple question - Should she have actually resigned on such an issue?
Anyway, just one final observation. The only similarity between the 2 resignations is that in both, she was specifically targeted. She resigned in each case to uphold herself, not the party or the country. Her resignation would have made a much bigger impact and sound more ‘inner voicely’ if she had done so to protest something else, say to protest the Gujarat riots.
A lot has been written and said about this peculiar habit of hers. I won’t comment on whether it was a virtuous act, a political gimmick, converting a necessity into an opportunity, or, most probably, a mix of all of these. All people hold different and yet equally valid opinions on this.
But there is a fundamental difference between the previous resignation and this one, which no one seems to be pointing out. When she declined the post of the PM, there was a pretty strong sentiment in a large section of the populace against India having an inexperienced and an Italian PM. So, if she had taken the post, each and every action of hers was going to be dissected under an electron microscope, and looked at with a tinge of suspicion. Just imagine, if the Quattarochi account defreezing had happened with her being the PM, what hell would have broken loose!! Basically, what I am trying to say is that the last time she resigned, there was a strong and justifiable reason behind it,namely, saving a large section of the nation from a great emotional trauma, and protecting the post of the PM from needless bias and suspicion.
Now take a look at the current case. The law on the office of profit funda is an archaic one. It allows Vijay Mallya to be on the Parliamentary committee on Aviation affairs, but considers heading some state film institute an office of profit. Did Jaya Bacchan just resign quietly when she was asked to? No, she fought, as she had done nothing wrong. She had not used her post in the UP Film Institute for any unfair means. The case was not that of her being at fault, but the law being at fault. Then why should she resign?
Similarly, when Sonia Gandhi was targeted, no one even alleged that she had profited from her office in NAC. The entire case was based on a silly law, which if applied, would reduce the legislature to a scene similar to our Gynac lectures. She should have stood up and said that she has done nothing wrong. Either everyone resigns or they all discuss the issue seriously and amend the law. And probably bring Jaya back as well. And she might have apologized for the brazen way the Congress had tried to subvert the parliament and bring an ordinance. That’s what an honest politician and a statesman would do. Accept ones mistake and rectify it.
Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. Instead, we were re fed the old resignation drama. And surprisingly, everyone seems to have missed this. No Big Fight or We the People asks this simple question - Should she have actually resigned on such an issue?
Anyway, just one final observation. The only similarity between the 2 resignations is that in both, she was specifically targeted. She resigned in each case to uphold herself, not the party or the country. Her resignation would have made a much bigger impact and sound more ‘inner voicely’ if she had done so to protest something else, say to protest the Gujarat riots.
posted by Akshay at 1:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home